F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 21 1999 TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk
FLOYD C. SHAVERS,
Petitioner-Appellant, v. No. 99-6018 STEPHEN W. KAISER; ATTORNEY (D.C. No. 98-CV-887-L) GENERAL OF THE STATE OF (W.D.Okla.) OKLAHOMA,
Respondents-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON, KELLY and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Floyd C. Shavers seeks a certificate of appealability to appeal the district
court’s denial of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. To receive federal
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the *
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. habeas relief from disposition of a claim on a question of law adjudicated by a
state court, Shavers must show the state adjudication “resulted in a decision that
was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established
Federal law.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). We deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal.
In 1997, Shavers was convicted of larceny of merchandise from a retailer, a
violation of Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1731(4). Following the second stage of the trial,
the jury found Shavers had previously been convicted of two or more felonies,
which resulted in the enhancement of his sentence pursuant to Okla. Stat. tit. 21,
§ 51(B). The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed his conviction,
finding (1) he waived any argument concerning voir dire because he did not
provide a transcript of the voir dire proceeding; (2) the evidence did not support a
lesser included jury instruction on misdemeanor larceny of merchandise from a
retailer; and (3) his sentence was properly enhanced under Okla. Stat. tit. 21,
§ 51. Shavers filed his § 2254 motion alleging the same errors. The magistrate
judge found (1) the Oklahoma court applied a state procedural rule to bar review
of the voir dire issue, which was an independent and adequate state law ground
precluding federal habeas corpus review; (2) the trial court’s failure to give a
lesser included instruction was not grounds for federal habeas corpus relief; and
(3) Shavers’ state law sentencing issue did not raise a federal constitutional
-2- question when the sentence imposed was within the guidelines provided by
statute. Over Shavers’ objection, the district court adopted the magistrate’s report
and recommendation, denied relief, and dismissed the § 2254 petition.
I.
Shavers first alleges the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to
excuse a potential juror for cause. Shavers used a peremptory challenge to
remove the juror, but contends he was denied his constitutional right to a fair and
impartial jury. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals determined any alleged
error was waived and not subject to review because the voir dire proceedings
were not transcribed and included in the record. See Orr v. State , 764 P.2d 1362,
1364 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988). We do not review a question of federal law
decided by a state court if the decision rested on a state law ground that was
independent of the federal question and adequate to support the judgment. See
Coleman v. Thompson , 501 U.S. 722, 729 (1991). The state court’s refusal to
address Shavers’ federal claims because he failed to meet a state procedural
requirement constitutes an independent and adequate state procedural ground.
See id. at 729-30.
Habeas corpus review of the juror issue is precluded unless Shavers “can
demonstrate cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged
violation of federal law, or demonstrate that failure to consider the claims will
-3- result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice.” Brecheen v. Reynolds , 41 F.3d
1343, 1353 (10th Cir. 1994) (quotation omitted). Shavers contends his trial
counsel failed to provide an adequate record on review and alleges a voir dire
transcript exists. A copy of a letter from the court reporter, which states she told
his mother it would cost $300 to transcribe the voir dire proceedings, is attached
to Shavers’ opening brief. Shavers did not provide a voir dire transcript to the
district court and he did not include it in the record on appeal. Although he
requests that this court obtain a copy of the transcript, it is his duty to provide an
adequate record for review.
Even if we assume Shavers has shown cause for his failure to provide the
voir dire transcript, he has not shown such failure resulted in actual prejudice.
Shavers used a peremptory strike to remove the potential juror from the panel. He
has not shown the remaining panel members were irrevocably tainted. Nor has he
shown this resulted in a fundamental miscarriage of justice. See Klein v. Neal , 45
F.3d 1395, 1400 (10th Cir. 1995) (requiring showing of factual innocence to
establish fundamental miscarriage of justice). The district court did not err in
finding Shavers’ allegations of error in voir dire were barred by a state procedural
rule.
II.
-4- Shavers alleges the state did not prove the value of the stolen merchandise.
The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals found the evidence in the record did
not support a lesser-included instruction on misdemeanor larceny of merchandise
from a retailer. See Bryson v. State , 876 P.2d 240, 255 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994)
(instruction on lesser-included offense need only be given when there is evidence
in the record to support such instruction). Shavers is not entitled to habeas relief
for failure to give a lesser-included offense instruction. See Lujan v. Tansy , 2
F.3d 1031, 1036 (10th Cir. 1993) (petitioner in non-capital case not entitled to
habeas relief for failure to give lesser-included offense instruction even if in our
view there was sufficient evidence to warrant giving instruction on lesser-
included offense).
It appears Shavers is in effect attacking the sufficiency of the evidence by
alleging there was no evidence that the value of the stolen merchandise was
greater than $50. The magistrate noted that because Shavers did not raise this
issue in state court, he could not raise it in his federal habeas action. Although
Shavers has not exhausted his state remedies, we may address his sufficiency
claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2).
In reviewing a sufficiency claim in a habeas proceeding, we determine
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 21 1999 TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk
FLOYD C. SHAVERS,
Petitioner-Appellant, v. No. 99-6018 STEPHEN W. KAISER; ATTORNEY (D.C. No. 98-CV-887-L) GENERAL OF THE STATE OF (W.D.Okla.) OKLAHOMA,
Respondents-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON, KELLY and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Floyd C. Shavers seeks a certificate of appealability to appeal the district
court’s denial of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. To receive federal
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the *
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. habeas relief from disposition of a claim on a question of law adjudicated by a
state court, Shavers must show the state adjudication “resulted in a decision that
was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established
Federal law.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). We deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal.
In 1997, Shavers was convicted of larceny of merchandise from a retailer, a
violation of Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1731(4). Following the second stage of the trial,
the jury found Shavers had previously been convicted of two or more felonies,
which resulted in the enhancement of his sentence pursuant to Okla. Stat. tit. 21,
§ 51(B). The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed his conviction,
finding (1) he waived any argument concerning voir dire because he did not
provide a transcript of the voir dire proceeding; (2) the evidence did not support a
lesser included jury instruction on misdemeanor larceny of merchandise from a
retailer; and (3) his sentence was properly enhanced under Okla. Stat. tit. 21,
§ 51. Shavers filed his § 2254 motion alleging the same errors. The magistrate
judge found (1) the Oklahoma court applied a state procedural rule to bar review
of the voir dire issue, which was an independent and adequate state law ground
precluding federal habeas corpus review; (2) the trial court’s failure to give a
lesser included instruction was not grounds for federal habeas corpus relief; and
(3) Shavers’ state law sentencing issue did not raise a federal constitutional
-2- question when the sentence imposed was within the guidelines provided by
statute. Over Shavers’ objection, the district court adopted the magistrate’s report
and recommendation, denied relief, and dismissed the § 2254 petition.
I.
Shavers first alleges the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to
excuse a potential juror for cause. Shavers used a peremptory challenge to
remove the juror, but contends he was denied his constitutional right to a fair and
impartial jury. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals determined any alleged
error was waived and not subject to review because the voir dire proceedings
were not transcribed and included in the record. See Orr v. State , 764 P.2d 1362,
1364 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988). We do not review a question of federal law
decided by a state court if the decision rested on a state law ground that was
independent of the federal question and adequate to support the judgment. See
Coleman v. Thompson , 501 U.S. 722, 729 (1991). The state court’s refusal to
address Shavers’ federal claims because he failed to meet a state procedural
requirement constitutes an independent and adequate state procedural ground.
See id. at 729-30.
Habeas corpus review of the juror issue is precluded unless Shavers “can
demonstrate cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged
violation of federal law, or demonstrate that failure to consider the claims will
-3- result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice.” Brecheen v. Reynolds , 41 F.3d
1343, 1353 (10th Cir. 1994) (quotation omitted). Shavers contends his trial
counsel failed to provide an adequate record on review and alleges a voir dire
transcript exists. A copy of a letter from the court reporter, which states she told
his mother it would cost $300 to transcribe the voir dire proceedings, is attached
to Shavers’ opening brief. Shavers did not provide a voir dire transcript to the
district court and he did not include it in the record on appeal. Although he
requests that this court obtain a copy of the transcript, it is his duty to provide an
adequate record for review.
Even if we assume Shavers has shown cause for his failure to provide the
voir dire transcript, he has not shown such failure resulted in actual prejudice.
Shavers used a peremptory strike to remove the potential juror from the panel. He
has not shown the remaining panel members were irrevocably tainted. Nor has he
shown this resulted in a fundamental miscarriage of justice. See Klein v. Neal , 45
F.3d 1395, 1400 (10th Cir. 1995) (requiring showing of factual innocence to
establish fundamental miscarriage of justice). The district court did not err in
finding Shavers’ allegations of error in voir dire were barred by a state procedural
rule.
II.
-4- Shavers alleges the state did not prove the value of the stolen merchandise.
The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals found the evidence in the record did
not support a lesser-included instruction on misdemeanor larceny of merchandise
from a retailer. See Bryson v. State , 876 P.2d 240, 255 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994)
(instruction on lesser-included offense need only be given when there is evidence
in the record to support such instruction). Shavers is not entitled to habeas relief
for failure to give a lesser-included offense instruction. See Lujan v. Tansy , 2
F.3d 1031, 1036 (10th Cir. 1993) (petitioner in non-capital case not entitled to
habeas relief for failure to give lesser-included offense instruction even if in our
view there was sufficient evidence to warrant giving instruction on lesser-
included offense).
It appears Shavers is in effect attacking the sufficiency of the evidence by
alleging there was no evidence that the value of the stolen merchandise was
greater than $50. The magistrate noted that because Shavers did not raise this
issue in state court, he could not raise it in his federal habeas action. Although
Shavers has not exhausted his state remedies, we may address his sufficiency
claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2).
In reviewing a sufficiency claim in a habeas proceeding, we determine
“whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of
-5- the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Kelly v. Roberts , 998 F.2d 802, 807-08
(10th Cir. 1993) (quotation omitted). Shavers did not include the underlying
criminal record in the record on appeal, but in his direct appeal brief, which is
included in the record on appeal, he admitted the trial testimony showed the
merchandise had a sale price of $75. There was sufficient evidence to support
Shavers’ conviction.
III.
Shavers also asserts the trial court erroneously enhanced his sentence under
the Oklahoma habitual criminal statute. He argues because his conviction was
subject to a jail sentence and not a prison term, it was not a felony for
enhancement purposes under Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 51(B). This would be true if the
state sought to enhance his sentence with one prior conviction. See Walker v.
State , 953 P.2d 354, 356 (Okla. Crim. App. 1998). However, the state sought to
enhance the sentence with two or more prior convictions, in which case the
sentence for any felony crime, regardless of punishment, may be enhanced. See
id. (citing Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 51(B)).
Shavers argues the enhancement provisions of Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1731(2)
and (3) should control his sentence. That section provides for an increased
sentence for defendants previously convicted of the same offense (larceny of
merchandise from a retailer). However, Shavers was not charged under that
-6- section, which only applies when the value of the merchandise is less than $50.
He was charged under § 1731(4), which is a felony, activating the enhancement
provisions of § 51(B). The district court did not err in finding Shavers’ sentence
did not present a federal constitutional issue when it was within the statutory
sentencing range.
Shavers’ application for a certificate of appealability is DENIED and the
appeal is DISMISSED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe Circuit Judge
-7-